# C_2018319EN.01001801.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/18

---

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — WP v EUIPO

(Case T-407/18)

(2018/C 319/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WP (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a Temporary Agent pursuant to Art. 2 f) CEOS (Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the EU); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a Temporary Agent pursuant to Art. 2 f) CEOS (Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the EU); and

| — | order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality by infringing the relevant provisions of the SR (Staff Regulations of the Officials of the EU) and CEOS, namely Art. 56 CEOS and 110 SR, and that the contested decision lacks any other legal base. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality by infringing the relevant provisions of the SR (Staff Regulations of the Officials of the EU) and CEOS, namely Art. 56 CEOS and 110 SR, and that the contested decision lacks any other legal base.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality, made a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to have regard for the welfare of staff. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality, made a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27 sec. 1, sec. 2 (b) of Regulation 45/2001. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27 sec. 1, sec. 2 (b) of Regulation 45/2001.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the principle of equal treatment.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001, L 8, p. 1)

---